About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
susan rice used when she went on five sunday talk shows, the famous picture of it, to talk about benghazi but you say a few days before the -- his office said they were responsible for editorring talking points, in a closed door hearing, james clapper told you and other senators he didn't know who was responsible. where does this investigation stand and how do you get to the bottom of it? >> well, it's like any other -- it's assumed the proportions of any other major scandal. there are many layers onion. all kinds of questions raised. i saw the director of national intelligence say he didn't know where these talking points were edited. and now he's saying he did. we'll be interested how that transpired. the biggest aspect of this whole thing is it's got to be looked into, why there was such a failure on the part of the administration in light of events the two attacks on our embassy, the assassination attempt on the british embassador, they closed their -- all this long train of events that made our consulate in benghazi a death trap. during that, why didn't we have military capa
that terrorists were behind the attack, that the administration watered down the talking points, that susan rice ended up using because they didn't want to tip off the terrorist they were on to them. let me start first with you, senator chambliss, because you were in a closed door hearing with petraeus. one, did he say it? if so, do you believe it? >> petraeus did not say that in those words, chris. i did not interpret anything he said to be that. general petraeus number one is obviously a great man and a great leader. both from the military standpoint and with role at the c.i.a. what he did say is that day one, we knew it was a terrorist attack. there was no question about it. you don't bring automatic weapons and rpgs and mortars to so-called demonstration. still are some questions that are yet to be answered about the planning of this. whether it was done over a period of time or whether it was truly a spontaneous reaction. there is no indication now that it was anything other than a planned attack. >> chris: do you have an understanding why the talking points changed over the course of the f
that u.n. ambassador susan rice used when she went on those five sunday talk shows, here's the picture, the famous picture of it. to talk about benghazi, but you say a few days before his office said they were responsible for editing the talking points, in a closed-door hearing the head of intelligence, james clapper, told you and other senators he didn't know who was responsible. question: two questions: where does the investigation stand? and how do you get to the bottom of it? >> well, it is like any other -- assuming the proportions of any other major scandal in this town, there are many layers to the onion and there are all kinds of questions raised, the most recent, the one you mentioned. i saw the director of national intelligence say he didn't know where the talking points were edited and now he's saying he did it. we'll be interested how that transpired. but, the biggest aspect of the whole thing is, it has to be really looked into. is why there was such a failure on the part of the administration in light of events, the two attacks on our embassy, assassination attempt on the
the administration watered down the talking points susan rice ends up using because they didn't want to tip that he have terrorists that they were on this them. let me start with you, senator chamblis, you were in one of those hearings with david petraeus, did he say it and did you believe it. >> he did not say that in those words, chris and i did not interpret anything he said to be that. general petraeus, number one, is obviously a great man and great leader, both from a military standpoint and with, also, the role with the cia and what he did say is from day one we knew it was a terrorist attack. there was no question about it. you you don't bring automatic weapons and rpgs and mortars to a so-called demonstration. still, there are some questions that are yet to be answered about the planning of this. whether it was done over a period of time, or, whether it was truly a spontaneous reaction. there is no indication now that it was anything other than a planned attack. >> chris: do you have an understanding as to why the talking points changed over the course of that first week? the white house sa
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)